Gerson: GOP can recapture Latino Catholic vote

The Catholic Church — a politically and ethnically sprawling institution — has no natural home on the American ideological spectrum. Neither major party combines moral conservatism with a passion for social justice. So Catholic leaders have often challenged Democrats to be more pro-life and Republicans to be more concerned about immigrants and the poor.

But President Barack Obama’s first term was a period of unexpected aggression against the rights of religious institutions. His Justice Department, in the Hosanna-Tabor case, argued against the existence of any “ministerial exception” to employment rules. Obama tried to mandate that Catholic schools, hospitals and charities offer insurance coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients. His revised policy still asserts a federal power to declare some religious institutions secular in purpose, reducing them to second-rate status under the First Amendment.

On top of this, Obama ran a stridently pro-abortion re-election campaign, seeking culture-war advantage on an issue he seldom mentioned four years ago.

The result? According to the first cut of exit poll analysis by the Pew Research Center, Obama’s support among white Catholics fell to 40 percent — seven points lower than four years ago. It was one of the largest swings of any portion of the electorate. John Green of the University of Akron argues the religious liberty issue came to “encapsulate other concerns such as abortion and marriage” among many regular mass attendees.

In a close election, this reaction might have made all the difference. But the election wasn’t particularly close. And the trend among white Catholics was partially offset by Latino Catholics moving in the opposite direction for reasons unrelated to abortion or religious freedom. In the end, Obama won the total Catholic vote by a small margin.

This result reveals a tension at the heart of the Republican coalition. The portion of that coalition pushing away Latino Catholics is making the political work of conservative Catholics far more difficult.

Catholics have a historical advantage in understanding the imperative of inclusion in modern politics. They belong, after all, to an institution that has been multicultural since Peter first set foot in Rome. But white evangelicals are now getting their own education in coalition politics. They gave Mitt Romney a remarkable 79 percent of their vote — the same share George W. Bush received in 2004 — while comprising a larger percentage of the electorate than they did in 2004. But their energy and loyalty were rendered irrelevant by GOP failures among other groups.

“Rather than a repudiation of cultural conservatism,” Green said, “this was an election in which cultural conservatives did everything they could, but the party fell short.”

In the long run, social conservatives will have serious trouble exerting influence unless they are allied with rising ethnic populations, which tend toward conservative social views. But social conservatives are now in a toxic alliance with political forces — the wall-builders and advocates of self-deportation — that are actively alienating rising ethnic populations.

Evangelicals and conservative Catholics — some of the most loyal members of the Republican coalition — have a direct political interest in making that coalition more inclusive. Hispanic outreach alone is not sufficient. Romney’s largest problem — picking from the smorgasbord is a challenge — was probably his under- performance among white working-class voters. But given America’s demographic direction, the overwhelming loss of Hispanic votes will gradually complicate the Republican political task to the point of impossibility. Unless this problem is solved, the GOP will remain on a long, downward slope toward irrelevance.

Outreach is not done in a single awkward lunge. It will involve more than endorsing comprehensive immigration legislation, though that is necessary. Hispanic voters have a series of concerns typical of a poorer but economically mobile community: working schools, college access, health care, a working safety net. Republicans will need to offer policy alternatives on these issues — defining an active, market- oriented role for government.

Perhaps the greatest Republican need is to embrace and demonstrate some other sound Catholic teachings: a commitment to the common good and a particular concern for the poor and vulnerable.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Thought-provoking for sure, but troubling for the GOP. They had a golden opportunity this year, emphasizing all the issues on which Administration policy ran (or could be claimed to run) completely against Catholic doctrine. The GOP was on the "right" doctrinal side of the arguments about gay marriage, birth control, abortion, and religious freedom (the Obamacare mandates), and ranking Church officials spoke out loudly and often against the Democratic positions. The result? Catholic voters went 50% for Obama and 48% for Romney while the overall voter split was 51-48.

So why didn't the Church deliver voters? For decades, self-identified Catholics have increasingly stopped doing what the Church says they must. Only 24% say they attend weekly Mass. The proscription against birth control is widely ignored. Enrollment in Catholic schools has fallen precipitously. And if the faithful no longer blindly follow the Church on religious and moral matters, they sure aren't going to let the Church tell them how to vote.

But there are two groups of Catholics: white and Hispanic. Only 40% of the white Catholics voted for Obama. 75% of the Hispanics voted for him. That's a lot like the overall results, where 59% of white voters supported Romney and 71% of Hispanics went for Obama.

So: Are Catholic voters much different than voters in general? Not in the way they voted, at least this time around.

This article appeared in the Catholic News Agency. Written by a staffer there.

Archbishop Chaput then reflected on the present state of the Catholic Church in America, painting a stark picture.

“More than 70 million Americans describe themselves as Catholics. But for all practical purposes, they’re no different from everybody else in their views, their appetites and their behaviors.”

This state, he said, was part of the “legacy” left by the baby boomer generation “to the Church in the United States.”

“In a sense, our political and economic power, our addictions to comfort, consumption and entertainment, have made us stupid.”

In response to that state of affairs, Archbishop Chaput urged every one to repentance and to conversion. In the face of a Catholic population indistinguishable from the general public, he proposed a sort of examination of conscience.

“So we need to ask ourselves: What do I want my life to mean? If I claim to be a Catholic, can I prove it with the patterns of my life? When do I pray? How often do I seek out the Sacrament of Penance? What am I doing for the poor? How am I serving the needy? Do I really know Jesus Christ?”

“Who am I leading to the Church? How many young people have I asked to consider a vocation? How much time do I spend sharing about God with my spouse, my children and my friends? How well and how often do I listen for God’s will in my own life?”

From there, the archbishop reflected on what we need to become, and took Saint Thomas More as an example.

More was an English lawyer and statesman, and chancellor of England under Henry VIII. His Catholic faith made him oppose Henry's divorce and re-marriage, and separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church. His integrity led him to be martyred in 1535.

Archbishop Chaput gave his audience a “homework assignment” over Thanksgiving break. He asked that people watch – “with your family” – the 1966 film on St. Thomas More called “A Man for All Seasons”

He said that “above all, More was a man of profound Catholic faith and practice. He lived what he claimed to believe. He had his priorities in right order. He was a husband and a father first.”

The archbishop then said that More is an example for all Catholics.

“We’re all called to martyrdom. That’s what the word martyr means: It’s the Greek word for “witness.” We may or may not ever suffer personally for our love of Jesus Christ. But we’re all called to be witnesses.”

Archbishop Chaput concluded his talk by emphasizing that becoming a saint, like St. Thomas More, is the one thing necessary in everyone's life.

In the past, Chaput is one of the members of the hierarchy who has advised Catholics how they should vote based on the political positions of candidates, both Catholic and non-Catholic. Judging from this month's election results, the people may have heard, but they didn't obey.